A matter of racial hatred, not just burning poppies

With the lead up to remembrance Sunday, Question Time was in Newcastle this week.  After the images emerged of the Muslim against Crusades group protesting and burning poppies, it prompted a lively discussion over the issues such as the rights of this group and in particular the extent of freedom of expression. This topic was particularly relevant with the home secretary, Theresa May, banning the group from midnight on Thursday evening.

As a first time voter, I felt it was Stephen Pollard, the editor of the Jewish chronicle, who was the most impressive of the panellists, as he was able to articulate his viewpoint with simplicity and evident knowledge of the subject. He outlined the central issue, stating that the group weren’t banned for simply ‘burning poppies’, but because they were in danger of in sighting ‘all kinds of racial hatred’ as well as committing public order offences. He also raised the question of whether Britain has the appropriate legislation in place to prevent these actions, bearing in mind this group is the same as last years ‘Islam4UK’, only renamed.

Scottish secretary Michael Moore summed the issue up nicely, stressing that freedom of expression, important as it is, has to have limits. When a group is promoting terrorism, it has crossed a line, therefore it is legitimate to take further steps. 

Baroness Williams speaks from the heart on Question Time

This week, for the first time in it’s history, Question Time was held in the Houses of Parliament, a rather fitting location for Guy Fawkes week. Inevitably, there was constant bickering between the right and left over issues such as public sector pensions, the eurozone, and the protestors at St Pauls Cathedral. The panel included parliamentary representatives such as Theresa May and Ed Balls as well as the poet and author Benjamin Zephaniah.

As a first time voter, what I found most refreshing was the honesty and frankness of Baroness Shirley Williams. With her experience and evident knowledge, she provided alternative viewpoints from the somewhat restricted politicians. No longer a member of parliament, Williams proceeded with an attractive openness in her answers, articulating what many MP’s may well believe, but can’t afford to say. This was best illustrated in her call for Silvio Berlusconi to stand down as prime minister of Italy provoking a surprised response from David Dimbleby, questioning whether it was ‘parliamentary etiquette’ to say that. Williams smartly replied that ‘some people don’t deserve etiquette’.

It is a good and necessary thing to have a broad cross section of people on the panel, and I am growing to like and respect these ‘old timers’ more and more. 

Theresa May trips over her kitten heels in Human Rights debate

The Human Rights Act, and in particular Theresa May, was the focus for this weeks Question Time (QT) in Salford. The panel were therefore given the chance to mop up events which had passed over the course of the week, at the Tory Party Conference. The main focus point, bar of course, the leader’s speech by ‘Dave’, was the comments of current Home Secretary Theresa May, who addressed conference over the issue of the Human Rights Act and her aim to eventually axe it. Clearly, May made a potential grave mistake by claiming that an illegal immigrant could not be deported because of his pet cat, a claim which was proved wrong almost immediately by the judicial office.

The panel at QT inevitably therefore attacked both May’s comments as well as her plans of abolition. As a First Time Voter, for me it was Charles Kennedy former Liberal Democrat leader, who shone as he got straight to the point, and in my opinion, summed up the Human Rights Act rather well. He stated that the Human Rights Act was set up ultimately to prevent Ms from ‘second guessing judgements by court’. He continued to mock Theresa May by providing the audience with the examples of former Home Secretaries, Douglas Hurd, William Whitelaw and Roy Jenkins, and questioned whether any of them would have stood up and used this kind of ‘idiotic caricature to advance a serious point’. Finally he concluded that the ‘answer speaks for itself’ and labelled her comments as ‘nonsensical rhetoric’. On this point, the panel had seemed to have found a conclusive answer, and Jane Moore, the Sun columnist, reiterated Kennedy’s point concluding simply that ‘the cat comment trivialised the serious topic of the Human Rights Act’.

The question therefore remains over the status of the Human Rights Act and whether it should remain untouched, amended, or altogether abolished. For me the answer is clear. The Human Rights Act should be hailed as one of Britain’s most prestigious and celebrated Acts of Parliament, as it protects and maintains natural human rights, which for me is even more imperative than it ever was, in today’s society. I support the proposed commission to review article 8 of the European convention on Human Rights, to potentially reduce the number of illegal immigrants/foreign criminals from claiming to ‘the right to family life’.

As a First Time Voter, I agree with Mr Clegg that the Human Rights Act should be ‘here to stay’.